What if it had been Charles?

[MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack]

The PM said this morning that nobody is above the law, but is that actually true?

If it had actually been the monarch who was suspected of committing the crimes that Andrew is accused of, rather than his brother, am I right in thinking that, as things stand, there would be no provision under our existing constitution to deal with this? The police and the courts are agents of the crown, so presumably they couldn't act against the monarch?

So what would actually happen in that situation if the rest of the royal family couldn't persuade the monarch to abdicate. Would we have to have a revolution?

ETA Sorry, forgot to add my AIBU. AIBU to think that it isn't quite accurate to say that nobody is above the law.

Charles? Friend of Jimmy Saville?

Oh cmon, they were hardly Bessie’s and if you’re trying to suggest h3 as friends with saville knowing then it’s laughable the man has his faults, but paedo sympathiser is not one of tnem.

But it wasn’t Charles, so it’s irrelevant.

By that standard, anyone who is friends, child, spouse etc, of an abuser is guilty by association? What a ridiculous thing to say.

Jimmy Savile fooled many in high places!

I know it wasn't Charles but I don't see why it isn't relevant.

If Charles had died before having children, Andrew would be our monarch now.

Are we OK with the idea of the monarch being above the law and immune to prosecution?

Those who are voting that I'm BU... I hope you're right, but could you explain please?

I think a monarch is not able to be arrested or prosecuted but many heads of state also have that privilege.

Good job it wasnt

Charles was heir to the throne, he didn't need a made up job like AMW did. The post of Trade Envoy was given to him because he needed a position after leaving the military.
AMW was ill suited to the role, he didn't have any special talent.

This. What if it was Kier Starmer? Louis Theroux? Owen Jones? Tommy Robinson?

It’s an interesting question. I suspect this is all just ‘bread and circuses’ (as described on another thread), for the masses, because Andrew’s ultimate ploy could well be to say that Charles knew everything. And I doubt we’d see the king in the witness box in one of his own courts!

Ultimately, the RF (all of them) are more interested in feathering their many nests than dealing with those pesky abuse perpetrators (see Mountbatten, Savile, Epstein/Andrew) so they will do whatever it takes to keep money from the public purse rolling in.

Can the monarch be arrested?

The King is subject to ‘sovereign immunity’, protecting him from criminal or civil legal proceedings.

https://consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-explained/the-monarchy/

Eh? Did you miss the point of the thread?

I'm asking about a constitutional question. Your hypothetical what-ifs are completely irrelevant to that question.

Eh? No.

There’s constitutional queries about a Monarch being arrested, but we’ll never really know until it plays out as it’s uncharted territory.

This is true, but elected heads of state can be removed. A monarch is a bit different.

Thank you, that's what I thought.

If it had been the monarch, by now he would have abdicated.

Well the last Monarch to be put on trial was Charles 1st in 1649, but that was for treason (this isn’t too dissimilar in a way). The constitution has evolved since then, we can also no longer behead people for example.

He has integrity as do both his sons (even though son number two has other flaws) and a monarch can step down.

I thought the rule of law applied to all?

Well, you would hope so. But I'm not sure.

Well, yes. So I am interested in thinking about how that would play out if it happened now.

Oooh I think this is such an interesting question.

What would happen if Charles killed someone? Could he not be tried for murder?

Yes, my point is not so much about what Charles (or his sons) would do in those situations, but rather what we could do if the monarch chose not to do the right thing.

If Andrew had been the monarch now, I'm less than convinced that he ^would stand down. Would there be any way to oust him without us actually having a revolution?

But that's exactly the point - it doesn't. It applies to everyone except the monarch.

And I wondered how comfortable people feel about that.